The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal approach in deciding matters on delay, emphasizing the importance of substantial justice over technical considerations.

G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)

CRL.M.A.11200/2015(delay)

1. This is an application filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of 53 days’ delay in filing the present leave to appeal petition.

2. Present application is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondent No.1, who submits that this application has been made without any application of mind, it is vague, lacks material particulars and stereo type. Counsel further submits that valuable rights have accrued in favour of respondent No.1 and thus, the court should take a serious view in the matter and dismiss the application. In support of this submission learned counsel for respondent No.1 relies upon Office of the Chief Postmaster General & Ors. v. Living Media India Limited and Anr., reported at (2012) 3 SCC 563, wherein the Supreme Court of India has held that the law of limitation binds everybody including the Government and delay should not be condoned as a matter of routine exercise. Counsel further submits that each day’s delay has not been explained by the State in filing the present leave to appeal petition.

3. Per contra, counsel for the State submits that the delay was not on account of inaction or carelessness but on account of the fact that the file pertaining to the present case was sent to various authorities and only after the matter was declared fit for an appeal, the present case was marked to the Additional Public Prosecutor who also took time to prepare the same, which resulted in delay of approximately 53 days in filing the present petition.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions.

5. While there is no quarrel with the proposition sought to be urged by learned counsel for the respondent that the law of limitation would bind everyone including the Government, we may notice that the case of Chief Postmaster General & Ors.(supra) sought to be relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the aforesaid matter, the delay of over 427 days was explanined. We may also notice that the issue with regard to delay in filing appeals and leave to appeals was considered by a Division Bench of this Court. Affidavits were filed by senior officers to show steps that were being taken to avoid delay. We are informed that the procedures stand streamlined. Even otherwise, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that in deciding the matters on delay, the Court must adopt a liberal approach.

6. In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another v. Mst. Katiji and Others, (1987) 2 SCC 107, the following principles were culled out:

"1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.

2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.

4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.

5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.

6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so."

7. In the case of Chief Postmaster General & Ors.(supra), reference was also made to the case of G.Ramegowda, Majo